Legislation Update – O-I-CEE!https://www.ceelegalblog.com
Central and Eastern Europe Legal News and ViewsMon, 21 Jan 2019 09:16:50 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9Debt financing in Poland –New Developmentshttps://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/12/1315/
https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/12/1315/#respondSun, 02 Dec 2018 11:43:21 +0000https://www.ceelegalblog.com/?p=1315Continue Reading]]>The Polish Parliament has recently adopted a new law implementing certain changes to the Polish financial system (“the Act”).[1] The aim is to strengthen supervision over capital markets and improve protection of investors, but it will significantly impact the timing and cost of raising capital through debt securities offered outside the public market.

The new law amends the Banking Law to implement the provisions of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive.[2] Currently, this is a very controversial issue, given the recent resignation of the Chair of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority and the fact that the new law allows the takeover of a bank with equity below certain thresholds or with a risk of such equity falling below certain thresholds. However, this post, in fact, deals with other issues raised by the new law.

The other provisions of the Act affect the financing of a business through private issue of debt securities (i.e. securities issued to private investors, not offered or traded on the public market).

Until now, debt capital could be acquired in several ways – either through bank debt, loans from non-banking institutions (e.g. private investors) or through issue of debt securities. Issuers seeking debt capital could choose to issue bonds or promissory notes, with the latter being the preferred type. The advantage of bonds over loans was the exemption from the transfer tax (podatek od czynności cywilnoprawnych) which, as far as loans are concerned, amounted to 2% of the loan value.[3]

The private issue and placement of bonds was relatively easy. As long as the bonds were offered to a closed and defined group of no more than 150 potential investors, there was no requirement to hold a public offering, prepare a prospectus and discuss the issue with market supervisors, brokers or depository agents. It was sufficient to prepare a simple offering memorandum, print out the bond documents and offer them to selected investors. All these formalities could be completed within one day and did not require any approval from the market regulator. Such bonds were not registered anywhere and, unless the company was listed on the public market, the issuer was under no obligation to report any details about the issue of the bonds (the real size of the privately issued corporate bonds market is not known). Bonds issued this way were fully tradable securities.

The ease of issuing securities connected with a certain lack of transparency had led, in the government’s view, to serious abuses. High-risk corporate bonds were offered to individual customers through a network of banks and ubiquitous financial advisors.[4] The investors were assured that an investment in corporate bonds is “as safe as a bank deposit”. The notorious Polish debt-collection company Getback, now insolvent, offered – through a network of banks, financial advisor and brokers – risky corporate bonds to more than 9,200 bondholders (including 9,064 individuals), with the total issue price exceeding PLN 2.6 billion (approx. €600 million). The company is now in administration, but it is almost certain that the bondholders will not get their all their money back.

This triggered a two-pronged government response.

Poland implemented the MIFID II Directive, thus forcing the investment firms offering securities to disclose whom they represent while offering securities and limiting their possibility to charge commission and receive remuneration from the securities issuers.

The new Act also changed the concept and procedure for issuing “private” securities.

For the sake of transparency, since the new act came into effect, all bonds offered by the Polish issuers [or in Poland] will need to be dematerialized, meaning that bonds cannot be in the form of a printed document, but need to be registered with the National Securities Depository (Krajowy Depozyt Papierów Wartościowych or KDPW). They will exist only as an entry in the KDPW computer system, as is the case of securities traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange.

This change raises two points.

First, if KDPW is going to take over the dematerialization of all such bonds and other securities[5], it will mean a significant increase KDPW workload. Will KDPW be able to cope, quickly and efficiently, with the registration of so many new documents? Certainly, it will take longer to enter into the required agreement with KDPW and register new bonds, so the amendment will impact the timing of new bond issues.

Second, as KDPW is not a charity, it will charge fees and commissions for bonds registration. Thus, there will be a pricing impact, making acquisition of capital through bonds more expensive. Such cost will be transferred onto the bondholders, who will receive a lower return on their bonds, or on issuers, as raising capital will become more expensive.

Finally, for the purpose of increasing the transparency of the market, KDPW will make certain information publicly available, allowing the public to learn about the existing situation of the issuer, as far as their indebtedness is concerned.

The amendment further provides that the issuer will have to enter into a contract with an issuing agent, being a licensed investment firm having the right to keep the register and deposit of securities. The issuing agent will need to assure they act independently from the issuer and that there is no conflict of interest. The issuing agent will have the duty to verify whether the issuer meets the criteria for issuing and offering the bonds and keep the register of bondholders. Without positive verification by the issuing agent, no bond offering will be closed. Finally, the issuing agent will be liable for damages caused by non-performance of its duties. Certainly, obligatory appointment of an issuing agent will provide additional protection to investors, but it will also impact the timing and costs of the offering.

The act provides for a certain temporary period – all bonds issued and not redeemed before 1 July 2019 in the form of documents are to remain in force and there is no duty to retain an issuing agent until this date. However, the issuer of such bonds needs to inform KDPW, by 31 March 2020, of certain details of such bonds, including the number of bonds, their yield and their face value.

[1] The Act on amendment of certain acts in connection with strengthening the supervision over the financial market and protection of investors. The new law was passed on November 9 and is yet to be signed into law by the President

[2] Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council

[3] There are tax exemptions for loans extended by the shareholders to companies.

[4] Such financial advisors were representing themselves as advisors to the investor while their remuneration was paid by the issuer of securities they offered.

[5] The Act provides that also other securities – such as mortgage bonds and certificates in private closed-end investment funds – need to be dematerialized and registered with KDPW.

]]>https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/12/1315/feed/0marcin.wnukowski@squirepb.comHigh Court in Prague sheds some light over the definition of a significant part of an enterprise https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/11/high-court-in-prague-sheds-some-light-over-the-definition-of-a-significant-part-of-an-enterprise/
https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/11/high-court-in-prague-sheds-some-light-over-the-definition-of-a-significant-part-of-an-enterprise/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 14:00:17 +0000https://www.ceelegalblog.com/?p=1303Continue Reading]]>

Like any other major change of legislation, the recodification of Czech private law in 2014 has raised a long list of interpretation issues. At the end of August 2018, the High Court in Prague outlined (since the decision has not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court) an interpretation with respect to one of the items on the list. It clarified the meaning of the term “a part of an enterprisethat would imply a significant change of the existing structure of the enterprise or a significant change in the scope of business of the company”.

Under the Czech Business Corporations Act, an approval of a general meeting is required for a transfer or pledge of an enterprise or such part thereof that would imply a significant change of the existing structure of the enterprise or a significant change in the scope of business of the company (the significant part of an enterprise). The question arose what does ‘the significant part of an enterprise’ actually mean.

Separate organizational unit

Under the first approach, which leans towards case law relating to the Commercial Code valid until the end of 2013, general meeting approval is necessary for those transactions when a branch or a separate organizational unit (as defined by the Civil Code and interpreted by courts under the previous Civil Code) are subject to an ownership transfer or pledge. However, a new condition must be taken into account. Such a transfer or pledge must cause a significant change of the existing structure of the enterprise or in the scope of business of the company.

Significant assets

The second (material) approach takes a different view. The proponents say that basically anything (real estate, machines, rights, etc.) can be characterized as the significant part of an enterprise, as long as it is essential for maintaining the existing structure of the enterprise or for maintaining the scope of business of the company. In other words, without such a component the company would not be able to conduct activities within the scope of its business. That is regardless of whether or not such an asset is organized as a branch or separate organizational unit. The problem with the material approach is that it is too abstract. In some situations, it may not be clear whether the transaction will or will not disrupt existing enterprise significantly (its structure or activities).

The decision of the High Court

The High Court supported the first approach stating that the approval of the general meeting is necessary for transfers or pledges of a branch or a separate organizational unit which would entail a substantial change in the structure of the enterprise or entail a substantial change in company’s scope of business.

Amendment to the Business Corporations Act

Unfortunately, it is still questionable as to how long the above mentioned decision, even if approved by the Supreme Court, will apply to corporate transactions. The Chamber of Deputies is currently discussing an amendment to the Business Corporations Act, under which the significant assets approach is supported and the new wording of the provision is proposed. We may still expect some amending proposals during the process. Therefore, we have to wait for the final wording of the amendment to draw the final conclusion.

]]>https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/11/high-court-in-prague-sheds-some-light-over-the-definition-of-a-significant-part-of-an-enterprise/feed/0hana.cekalova@squirepb.com, maros.kandrik@squirepb.comWill One of the CEE Countries’ Governments Take an Example From Malta or Lichtenstein in Developing Blockchain Regulation?https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/08/will-one-of-the-cee-countries-governments-take-an-example-from-malta-or-lichtenstein-in-developing-blockchain-regulation/
https://www.ceelegalblog.com/2018/08/will-one-of-the-cee-countries-governments-take-an-example-from-malta-or-lichtenstein-in-developing-blockchain-regulation/#respondThu, 23 Aug 2018 07:35:08 +0000https://www.ceelegalblog.com/?p=1265Continue Reading]]>Many countries inside the European Union are still struggling to come up with clear regulations that would provide a predictable set of rules for the blockchain technology. However, smaller nations like Liechtenstein and Malta have sorted it out.

Malta

On July 4, 2018, the Parliament of Malta approved a regulatory framework for blockchain technology, making Malta one of the most “blockchain-friendly” countries in the world.

The three bills that were passed by unanimous vote are The Malta Digital Innovation Authority (MDIA) Bill, The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services (ITAS) Bill and The Virtual Financial Assets (VFA) Bill.

The MDIA Bill establishes the Malta Digital Innovation Authority (Authority), which shall provide for minimum quality, compliance and security standards for any innovative technology arrangements and innovative technology services, and regulate such sectors as may be necessary, to protect the general public. This law focuses on internal governance arrangements and outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Authority to certify distributed ledger technology (DLT) platforms to ensure credibility and provide legal certainty to DLT platforms’ users.

The ITAS Bill provides for requirements, which any innovative technology arrangement or any innovative technology service will have to meet to obtain a certificate from the Authority. The certificate will state the details of how the innovative technology arrangement or service is identified, including any public key or a brand name.

The VFA Bill regulates Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). It sets forth prerequisite steps that each project has to go through in order to be compliant. One of the interesting requirements is that each issuer needs to make their financial history public.

Together, these bills make Malta a very desirable location to set up a shop in the blockchain space.

Lichtenstein

One of the world’s smallest countries has introduced legislation that aims to secure a connection between blockchain systems and the physical world with state regulatory oversight. This will create trust, which is important for blockchain businesses and citizens.

On June 21, 2018, Dr. Thomas Dünser, the Head of the blockchain working group at the Ministry of General Government Affairs and Finance, presented the key elements of the new Blockchain Act. The enactment of the act is expected by 2019. The law will provide legal basis for:

The range of applications is wide. For instance, the law would enable any enterprise to obtain financing in a simplified and less cost-intense procedure, as well as a better valuation of the company. This could be done by offer utility tokens or security tokens, such as tokenization of shares and offering them for trade compared to cost intensive private placements or IPOs.

The Blockchain Act will provide regulation on the determination and transfer of digital ownership and, therefore, the assets represented by the token. Further, the law will define the requirements for licensing of companies providing services in the token economy such as secure storage of tokens. In terms of storage, the law will demand a high level of security for storage and prevention of hacking or loss complemented with the requirement of insurance for the stored values.

The Blockchain Act will be complemented by the existing high-level “know your customer” (KYC) and antimony laundering (AML) requirements under Liechtenstein law, as well as the regulation of the conventional financial market.

New law will attract cryptocurrency and blockchain start-ups by providing them with regulatory certainty that is not overly burdensome.